{"id":303878,"date":"2024-02-22T19:12:08","date_gmt":"2024-02-22T18:12:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303878"},"modified":"2024-02-22T19:12:12","modified_gmt":"2024-02-22T18:12:12","slug":"the-hockey-stick-trial-science-dies-in-a-dc-courtroom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303878","title":{"rendered":"The Hockey Stick Trial: Science Dies in a DC Courtroom"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The RealClearEnergy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Rupert Darwall<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201cScience,\u201d wrote the philosopher Karl Popper, \u201cis one of the very few human activities \u2013 perhaps the only one \u2013 in which errors are systematically criticised and fairly often, in time, corrected.\u201d The sub-title of Popper\u2019s 1963 book Conjectures and Refutations<\/a>, in which he argued that science progresses through inspired conjectures checked by attempts to refute them through criticism, is \u201cThe Growth of Scientific Knowledge.\u201d Now, a six-person jury in Washington, DC has refuted Popper\u2019s formulation of the uniqueness of science, finding in favor of climate scientist Michael Mann in the defamation suit<\/a> he brought against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn dating back to 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Central to Mann\u2019s case was his attempt to reconstruct global temperature over the previous millennium \u2013 the iconic \u201chockey stick\u201d graph. The graph shows global temperatures purportedly falling for centuries and suddenly shooting upwards with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Mann\u2019s hockey stick representation was derived principally from selected tree ring data based on the assumption that tree rings constitute accurate proxies for temperature and are not contaminated by confounding factors such as rainfall, seasonal variability, and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The results that Mann produced are also sensitive to decisions on and application of statistical techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be little doubt of the hockey stick\u2019s historic importance in the development and propagation of what became the dominant scientific paradigm of climate change. In 2001, the hockey stick was given star billing in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\u2019s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, where it appeared twice in the synthesis report, twice more in a diagram combining past and future temperature change, and again on the third page of the Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. Gerald North<\/a>, a leading atmospheric physicist at Texas A&M University and one of the most cited authors in the geosciences, had no doubt as to the significance of the hockey stick. \u201cThe planet has been cooling slowly until one hundred and twenty years ago, when, bam! It jumps up,\u201d North told Science in 2000. \u201cWe\u2019ve been breaking our backs on [greenhouse] detection, but I found the one-thousand-year records more convincing than any of our detection studies.\u201d For Mann, the hockey stick was his ticket to climate super-stardom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In keeping with Popper\u2019s premise about science, however, Mann\u2019s hockey stick aroused criticism from its first appearance. In response, Mann engaged in distinctly anti-Popperian efforts to suppress all criticism of the hockey stick and discussion of rival temperature reconstructions that might raise awkward questions about its scientific validity. A rival reconstruction by fellow paleo-climatologist Keith Briffa, for example, derived from tree ring data obtained from northern Canada and Siberia, showed a noticeable decline in temperatures over the latter part of the 20th century \u2013 opening up a divergence with the instrumental record. If tree rings suggested declining temperatures when temperatures were actually rising, then how could climate scientists put any confidence in tree rings as thermometers? Up could really mean down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Briffa then wrote a paper for Science comparing the rival reconstructions. As we know from the Climategate emails<\/a> leaked in 2009, Mann contacted the editor of Science. \u201cBetter that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us,\u201d he wrote, copying in one of his co-authors, Raymond Bradley. After Science published Briffa\u2019s paper, Mann tried to patch things up. \u201cThanks for all the hard work,\u201d he emailed colleagues. The sentiment didn\u2019t go down well with Bradley. \u201cExcuse me while I puke,\u201d Bradley emailed Briffa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such shenanigans are small beer compared to the surgery undertaken on the graphs of proxy reconstructions showcased in the IPCC\u2019s Third Assessment Report. To deal with Briffa\u2019s question-inducing temperature decline, Mann, as lead chapter author, and a tight-knit team resorted to the simple expedient of truncating adverse data that could serve as a \u201cpotential distraction\/detraction,\u201d Mann explained<\/a> to his colleagues, and thereby hiding the temperature decline<\/a> shown by Briffa\u2019s proxies when temperatures were rising. The gambit also involved using actual temperature data to smooth the proxy curves in what became known<\/a> as \u201cMike\u2019s Nature trick,\u201d something Mann had done previously in a paper submitted to that journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a more fundamental problem with the construction of the hockey stick. Analysis conducted by Canadians Steve McIntyre, a former mining engineer with a strong grounding in mathematics, and environmental economist Ross McKitrick using an algorithm based on a fragment of Mann\u2019s computer code, found that running statistically trendless \u201cred noise\u201d produced hockey stick shapes 99 percent of the time. In other words, you could get hockey sticks from random junk data if you had enough of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann included in his proxy data set a series of bristlecone and foxtail pines from the western United States that had been selected by researcher Donald Graybill to study the possible effects of carbon dioxide fertilization on tree growth. To get the hockey stick from the data, Mann needed both the algorithm and Graybill\u2019s tree ring data. Did Mann know what he was doing? Inside his directory of North American proxy data, Mann had a folder which he had labelled BACKTO_1400-CENSORED containing the North American data except all sixteen of the Graybill series. When the numbers from the CENSORED folder were run, the blade of the hockey stick disappeared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the blade of the hockey stick showed a sharp, anomalous rise in global temperature coinciding with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, its shaft also performed a critical function in radically revising the previously accepted climatological record by showing a steady decline in temperatures from the end of the first millennium. What previous generations of climatologists called the Medieval Warm Period had disappeared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Medieval Warm Period presented a twofold problem to the new climate change orthodoxy. It implied a much greater amplitude of natural variability beyond the bounds posited by the new scientific consensus of human-driven climate change, and it challenged the catastrophist narrative of global warming. If the prosperity of the Middle Ages and Viking settlement of Greenland occurred during an extended period of unusual warmth, then modern societies, too, could survive and prosper in a period of rising temperature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In written congressional testimony in 2011, the climate scientist John Christy recalled discussions on the preparation of the Third Assessment Report when he pressed for inclusion of the findings of a 1998 paper in which Greenland ice-borehole temperatures provide a 20,000-year reconstruction. \u201cTheir result indicated a clear 500-year period of temperatures, warmer than the present, centered about 900 AD,\u201d Christy testified<\/a>. Despite \u2013 or, perhaps, because \u2013 of the importance of the paper in contradicting the hockey stick, the Third Assessment Report ignored the paper altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann went further in a 2008 paper<\/a> that presented a 2,000-year temperature reconstruction. The reconstruction was derived from sediments from Lake Korttajarvi in Iceland analyzed in a paper by the Finnish geologist Mia Tiljander. But Mann\u2019s reconstruction inverted the Tiljander proxies, so warming became cooling and cooling became warming. According to Matti Saarnisto<\/a>, one of Tiljander\u2019s co-authors, the Medieval Warm Period was shown in a mirror image. In an email he\u2019d received from Bradley, who despite his previous experience was still one of Mann\u2019s co-authors, a large group of researchers had been handling extensive material and \u201cat some point it happened that this graph was turned upside down.\u201d Was this done on purpose or by mistake? \u201cIt has been turned upside down twice in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake any more,\u201d Saarnisto said, adding that the authors belong to a group \u201cskeptical about this Medieval Warm Period and have tried to hide it to some extent.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

***<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann\u2019s defamation suit revolved around two issues. The first relates to Simberg and Steyn linking the investigation of Mann at Penn State, where he was professor of meteorology, to the university\u2019s investigation and cover-up involving football coach and convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky. Penn State president Graham Spanier was later convicted of child endangerment for his role in the Sandusky cover-up. As Steyn told the court in his opening statement<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the same scoundrel who protected Sandusky also protected Michael Mann. So, we\u2019re not comparing Mann with Sandusky; we\u2019re comparing the investigation of Mann with the investigation of Sandusky \u2013 because both investigations were controlled by the same chap: a corrupt convicted criminal called Graham Spanier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the two defendants, Simberg\u2019s language was the less delicate and more direct. As Steyn told the jury, quoting directly from his original piece, \u201cI\u2019m not sure I would have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point,\u201d distancing himself from Simberg\u2019s statement that Mann could be regarded as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second issue relates to Simberg and Steyn describing Mann\u2019s hockey stick as fraudulent. Though this was less inflammatory than the linkage made between Mann and Sandusky via Penn State\u2019s respective investigations into their conduct, the jury believed that it was the greater offense. It imposed just $1,000 in punitive damages on Simberg but $1 million \u2013 one thousand times more \u2013 on Steyn. (The jury awarded Mann a dollar each from Simberg and Steyn to compensate him for damage to his reputation.) The massive differential in punishments the jury meted out to the two defendants can only be explained by the jury\u2019s political bias. Steyn has a high profile as one of the most accomplished of conservative commentators. Evidently, the DC jury decided to make an example of Steyn and discourage any public questioning of today\u2019s consensus of human-caused climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his opening statement, Steyn argued that it is not for the courts to adjudicate science. \u201cA scientific theorem that requires validation by a courtroom verdict is not science at all,\u201d Steyn argued. In principle, a court should be able to assess whether evidence used to make a scientific claim has been knowingly distorted, omitted, concealed or, in some other way, manipulated to produce a desired result. After all, fraud is not limited to theft but includes the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann\u2019s lawsuit demonstrates that the courts \u2013 at least, a court in the nation\u2019s capital with politically biased jurors \u2013 are not capable of objective evaluation. Such cases also involve federal rules on the admissibility of evidence proffered by expert witnesses and the Daubert standard for scientific evidence<\/a>. In a 39-page report<\/a>, climate scientist Judith Curry gave her opinion that it is \u201creasonable\u201d to have referred to the hockey stick in 2012 as \u201cfraudulent\u201d in the sense that \u201caspects of it are deceptive and misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Judge Alfred S. Irving excluded<\/a> Curry\u2019s report, which catalogued the manipulations of data to get a hockey stick shape and quoted severe criticisms of the hockey stick made even by climate scientists supportive of the climate-change consensus (most of these made privately). For his exclusion, the judge cited grounds that \u201cthe methodologies of the expert must be grounded in the scientific method, such that another person with similar expertise could replicate them.\u201d Ruling on the inadmissibility of her testimony, Judge Irving said: \u201cTo wit, her expert report does not contain any explanations of her methodologies, making it impossible for the Court to find her testimony reliable.\u201d There is little theoretical difference between cataloguing evidence to determine fraudulent misrepresentation in financial and commercial cases and evidence to assess scientific fraud; it would be absurd to require fraud investigators to set out their methodologies and expect different investigators to compile identical reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial closed with Mann\u2019s counsel, John Williams, making a naked appeal to the jurors\u2019 political prejudices. Williams urged the jury to award punitive damages so that no one will dare engage in \u201cclimate denialism\u201d \u2013 just as Donald Trump\u2019s \u201celection denialism\u201d needed to be suppressed. \u201cIn 41 years of trying cases to juries,\u201d John Hinderaker wrote<\/a> on the Powerline blog, \u201cI have never heard such an outrageously improper appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steyn related in his opening statement that Mann had chosen not to sue him for describing the hockey stick as fraudulent in any of the English-speaking jurisdictions lacking the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The upshot of Mann\u2019s victory, Steyn warned, would be that \u201cyou cannot call his hockey stick a fraud in the United States, but you can in all the countries that chose, unlike you rebellious guys, to remain within the British Empire.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This points to the biggest issue at stake in the trial. On the northeast wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, is carved a short extract that Thomas Jefferson had drafted<\/a> for a bill on establishing religious freedom. Its preamble provides the philosophical justification for why the First Amendment is ranked first:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Popper argued, free argument and debate are not only essential for the advance of scientific knowledge. They also constitute the fundamental requirement for the maintenance of a constitutional republic.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rupert Darwall is a senior fellow of the RealClear Foundation and author of\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Green Tyranny<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cScience,\u201d wrote the philosopher Karl Popper, \u201cis one of the very few human activities \u2013 perhaps the only one \u2013 in which errors are systematically criticised and fairly often, in time, corrected.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":299654,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"\u201cScience,\u201d wrote the philosopher Karl Popper, \u201cis one of the very few human activities \u2013 perhaps the only one \u2013 in which errors are systematically criticised and fairly often, in time, corrected.\u201d","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691826466,691820449,691821148,691823943,691819283,691818215,691826633],"class_list":{"0":"post-303878","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climategate-emails","9":"tag-hockey-stick","10":"tag-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-changes-ipcc","11":"tag-mark-steyn","12":"tag-medieval-warm-period","13":"tag-michael-mann","14":"tag-rand-simberg","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hockeyStick-768x557-1.png?fit=768%2C557&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1h3g","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":300828,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=300828","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":0},"title":"JC\u2019s expert report","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The prevalent public accusation that the Hockey Stick is a \u201cfraud\u201d is largely based on image manipulation that deleted adverse data and splicing together different data sets (to \u201chide the decline\u201d) in a highly publicized version of the Hockey Stick that appeared in the IPCC TAR. Also contributing to a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"blogosphere\"","block_context":{"text":"blogosphere","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=blogosphere"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0-Hocey-Stick.png?fit=1200%2C694&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0-Hocey-Stick.png?fit=1200%2C694&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0-Hocey-Stick.png?fit=1200%2C694&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0-Hocey-Stick.png?fit=1200%2C694&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0-Hocey-Stick.png?fit=1200%2C694&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299240,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299240","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":1},"title":"Steyn v Mann: The Infamous Climate \u2018Hockey Stick\u2019 Goes on Trial","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Fifteen years on from the\u00a0notorious Climategate scandal, and the widely debunked temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019 is centre stage in a libel trial in a Washington D.C. court. In the widely-billed climate trial of the century, the\u00a0fake Nobel laureate\u00a0Michael Mann is suing the journalist Mark Steyn for claiming that his infamous hockey\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"cancel culture\"","block_context":{"text":"cancel culture","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cancel-culture"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1200%2C656&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1200%2C656&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1200%2C656&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1200%2C656&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1200%2C656&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240713,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=240713","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":2},"title":"The Tyranny of Woke Human Rights","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The most important story in the hockey world, according to sports media, is that one player decided not to wear a gay pride jersey, and they are deeply upset about it.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-890.png?fit=861%2C340&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-890.png?fit=861%2C340&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-890.png?fit=861%2C340&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-890.png?fit=861%2C340&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289808,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=289808","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":3},"title":"The Layman’s Guide to The Hockey Stick – Understanding the birth of climate alarmism","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/12\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The creation of the hockey stick graph laid the very foundation of climate alarmism. This video examines how normal scientific methods were thrown aside as the politicians took control and started what has become the mass mania of climate alarmism. Just 12 minutes long. Climate Realism by Paul Burgess https:\/\/youtu.be\/dvntSrn31Zo","rel":"","context":"In \"clash of conclusions\"","block_context":{"text":"clash of conclusions","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=clash-of-conclusions"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-03-144440.png?fit=974%2C559&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-03-144440.png?fit=974%2C559&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-03-144440.png?fit=974%2C559&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-03-144440.png?fit=974%2C559&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257297,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=257297","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":4},"title":"CLINTEL\u2019s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The key issue is this:\u00a0 the IPCC focuses on \u201cdangerous anthropogenic climate change,\u201d which leads to ignoring natural climate change, focusing on extreme emissions scenarios, and cherry picking the time periods and the literature to make climate change appear \u201cdangerous.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"AR6\"","block_context":{"text":"AR6","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ar6"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0IPCC_AR6_covers.png?fit=1200%2C511&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0IPCC_AR6_covers.png?fit=1200%2C511&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0IPCC_AR6_covers.png?fit=1200%2C511&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0IPCC_AR6_covers.png?fit=1200%2C511&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0IPCC_AR6_covers.png?fit=1200%2C511&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299594,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299594","url_meta":{"origin":303878,"position":5},"title":"Mann vs. Steyn: Climate Trial of the Century Week 3 – Guest: Ann McElhinney","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On episode 96 of Climate Change Roundtable, special guest Ann McElhinney joins The Heartland Institute\u2019s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to break down the latest bombshell moments of the trial. We are sure to mention the devastating testimony on Thursday of renowned statistician Abraham Wyner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Trial\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Trial","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-trial"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=303878"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303878\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":303883,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303878\/revisions\/303883"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/299654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=303878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=303878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=303878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}